Records management capacity and compliance toolkits: a critical assessment

Abstract

Purpose This article seeks to present the results of a project that critically evaluated a series of toolkits for assessing records management capacity and/or compliance. These toolkits have been developed in different countries and sectors within the context of the e‐environment and provide evidence of good corporate and information governance. Design/methodology/approach A desk‐based investigation of the tools was followed by an electronic Delphi with toolkit developers and performance measurement experts to develop a set of evaluation criteria. Different stakeholders then evaluated the toolkits against the criteria using cognitive walkthroughs and expert heuristic reviews. The results and the research process were reviewed via electronic discussion. Findings Developed by recognised and highly respected organisations, three of the toolkits are software tools, whilst the fourth is a methodology. They are all underpinned by relevant national/international records management legislation, standards and good practice including, either implicitly or explicitly, ISO 15489. They all have strengths, complementing rather than competing with one another. They enable the involvement of other staff, thereby providing an opportunity for raising awareness of the importance of effective records management. Practical implications These toolkits are potentially very powerful, flexible and of real value to organisations in managing their records. They can be used for a “quick and dirty” assessment of records management capacity or compliance as well as in‐depth analysis. The most important criterion for selecting the appropriate one is to match the toolkit with the scenario. Originality/value This paper aims to raise awareness of the range and nature of records management toolkits and their potential for varied use in practice to support more effective management of records.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 21 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.